New Book On Homosexual Behaviour

[Benedictus]

Perigrina - Yeah, sure. Ok. .. :clap:

[Perigrina]

Yes I know we are on page 19.  You don't have to say so.

[stevil]

I think you're confused. The discrimination is against the falsity called "gay marriage". She is not saying Catholics should refuse services just because someone is a homosexual, but because of what that cake will be used to support, which is the lie that homosexuals can be married or that marriage is between persons of the same sex.

For example I will discriminate against the idea that 2+2=5. Yet my discrimination of such a false equation is not a discrimination towards mathematicians. If anything it's an act of charity.

If it is impossible for gays to get married then why would anyone be worried about gay people having a marriage ceremony, gaining government recognition and gaining legal benefits?

I don't believe that a person can make it rain by performing a rain dance or by praying for rain. If I am having a wedding and am hoping for sunny weather I'm certainly not going to be worried about people dancing or praying for rain. In fact, if I was in the business of selling music players, I would be happy to sell the rain dancer a music player even if they are going to use it to help them dance for rain on my wedding day.

How does it make sense to protest or withhold services, goods from someone attempting to do the impossible?

[Perigrina]

If it is impossible for gays to get married then why would anyone be worried about gay people having a marriage ceremony, gaining government recognition and gaining legal benefits?

I don't believe that a person can make it rain by performing a rain dance or by praying for rain. If I am having a wedding and am hoping for sunny weather I'm certainly not going to be worried about people dancing or praying for rain. In fact, if I was in the business of selling music players, I would be happy to sell the rain dancer a music player even if they are going to use it to help them dance for rain on my wedding day.

How does it make sense to protest or withhold services, goods from someone attempting to do the impossible?

 

It is the "Emperor's New Clothes" phenomenon.  One does not want to be one of the people pretending they see clothing that is not there.

[Credo in Deum]

If it is impossible for gays to get married then why would anyone be worried about gay people having a marriage ceremony, gaining government recognition and gaining legal benefits?[/quote]

 

Because the Truth matters, stevil.  It matters even when the majority of people do not believe it, are indifferent to it, or do not practice it. 

 

 

I don't believe that a person can make it rain by performing a rain dance or by praying for rain. If I am having a wedding and am hoping for sunny weather I'm certainly not going to be worried about people dancing or praying for rain. In fact, if I was in the business of selling music players, I would be happy to sell the rain dancer a music player even if they are going to use it to help them dance for rain on my wedding day.  How does it make sense to protest or withhold services, goods from someone attempting to do the impossible?

 

Your analogy is not recognizing a key factor in this, and that is the government is not trying to force you to accept the rain dance as a legitimate practice of meteorology. In you're analogy you are not being fined or sued for not accepting the rain dance as a legitimate practice of meteorology.

 

One can only hope that you would defend the science of meteorology from the impossible and the ridiculous. 

Edited June 24, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[stevil]

[background=#f7f7f7]Your analogy is not recognizing a key factor in this, and that is the government is not trying to force you to accept the rain dance as a legitimate practice of meteorology. In you're analogy you are not being fined or sued for not accepting the rain dance as a legitimate practice of meteorology. [/background]
 
[background=#f7f7f7]One can only hope that you would defend the science of meteorology from the impossible and the ridiculous. [/background]

Maybe the government isn't trying to force anyone to accept gay marriage as a legitimate marriage. They certainly don't line people up, get them to verbally proclaim "gay marriage is legitimate!" at gun point.
I think the government it trying to get people not to discriminate such that people whom perform services or sell goods to the general public aren't discriminately not performing these for a certain type of people.
It's just selling a cake, it isn't sponsorship or support of a wedding.

Would you get upset if the cake was going to be used for filming of a TV wedding? Which is just a pretend wedding.

[Perigrina]

Maybe the government isn't trying to force anyone to accept gay marriage as a legitimate marriage. They certainly don't line people up, get them to verbally proclaim "gay marriage is legitimate!" at gun point.
I think the government it trying to get people not to discriminate such that people whom perform services or sell goods to the general public aren't discriminately not performing these for a certain type of people.
It's just selling a cake, it isn't sponsorship or support of a wedding.

Would you get upset if the cake was going to be used for filming of a TV wedding? Which is just a pretend wedding.

 

Providing goods and services would be a way of proclaiming with our actions support for a marriage which we believe is wrong.  Forcing people to do that is very much like lining us up and telling us we must state "gay marriage is legitimate".

[stevil]

Providing goods and services would be a way of proclaiming with our actions support for a marriage which we believe is wrong.  Forcing people to do that is very much like lining us up and telling us we must state "gay marriage is legitimate".

This is the crux of the differences. You see it one way and government sees it another.
I am sure you have freedom of speech, I'm sure you can walk around with a picket board proclaiming that "gay marriage is a sin", no-one will lock you up for that.

But if gay marriage is impossible like making 2+2=5 then it is impossible for someone to sin by having a gay marriage. It is even impossible to support gay marriage such as it is impossible to support someone in travelling faster than light.
You are merely providing a cake and being paid for goods and services. You are not supporting a gay marriage because gay marriage is impossible. It seems you have nothing to worry about.

[CrossCuT]

This is the crux of the differences. You see it one way and government sees it another.
I am sure you have freedom of speech, I'm sure you can walk around with a picket board proclaiming that "gay marriage is a sin", no-one will lock you up for that.

But if gay marriage is impossible like making 2+2=5 then it is impossible for someone to sin by having a gay marriage. It is even impossible to support gay marriage such as it is impossible to support someone in travelling faster than light.
You are merely providing a cake and being paid for goods and services. You are not supporting a gay marriage because gay marriage is impossible. It seems you have nothing to worry about.

:hehe2:

[Perigrina]

This is the crux of the differences. You see it one way and government sees it another.
I am sure you have freedom of speech, I'm sure you can walk around with a picket board proclaiming that "gay marriage is a sin", no-one will lock you up for that.

But if gay marriage is impossible like making 2+2=5 then it is impossible for someone to sin by having a gay marriage. It is even impossible to support gay marriage such as it is impossible to support someone in travelling faster than light.
You are merely providing a cake and being paid for goods and services. You are not supporting a gay marriage because gay marriage is impossible. It seems you have nothing to worry about.

 

It depends on where one lives what "the governement" does.  I almost certainly would face legal repercussions for walking around here with a picket board that said "gay marriage is a sin".  It would be considered hate speech.  In other places, religious freedoms are still protected.

 

If I write 2+2=5 on my cake, then the cake is supporting the dishonesty of pretending that 2+2=5.  Your argument is mere sophistry.

 

[stevil]

If I write 2+2=5 on my cake, then the cake is supporting the dishonesty of pretending that 2+2=5.  Your argument is mere sophistry.

Let's say a group of mathematicians came to your bakery and asked for a cake with 2+2=5 on top.
You in a shocked and prudent voice "But that's just wrong, I'm not going to put that on a cake! Hmmph!"
Them whispering to you "Don't worry, we know that 2+2 doesn't equal 5. It's a bit of an inside joke because it is for a leaving party where one of our collegues made an amaziing mathematical formula, thought he was going to be world famous but then under scrutiny we found he made this basic mistake. No numbers will be harmed in the making of this cake, mathematics will not collapse and the world as we know it will continue."


Would you still insist on not making the cake?

[Perigrina]

Let's say a group of mathematicians came to your bakery and asked for a cake with 2+2=5 on top.
You in a shocked and prudent voice "But that's just wrong, I'm not going to put that on a cake! Hmmph!"
Them whispering to you "Don't worry, we know that 2+2 doesn't equal 5. It's a bit of an inside joke because it is for a leaving party where one of our collegues made an amaziing mathematical formula, thought he was going to be world famous but then under scrutiny we found he made this basic mistake. No numbers will be harmed in the making of this cake, mathematics will not collapse and the world as we know it will continue."


Would you still insist on not making the cake?

 

I would not have a problem with that cake because nobody is really claiming or pretending the 2+2=5.  This is quite different from the situation with same-sex marriage.

[stevil]

I would not have a problem with that cake because nobody is really claiming or pretending the 2+2=5.  This is quite different from the situation with same-sex marriage.

I don't think gay people having a secular marriage are claiming that they are married under god, certainly not claiming to be married under the Catholic god.

[Perigrina]

I don't think gay people having a secular marriage are claiming that they are married under god, certainly not claiming to be married under the Catholic god.

 

Marriage has both a natural and religious aspect. Any real marriage has the natural aspect regardless of whether the husband and wife believe in God.

[Credo in Deum]

This is the crux of the differences. You see it one way and government sees it another.
I am sure you have freedom of speech, I'm sure you can walk around with a picket board proclaiming that "gay marriage is a sin", no-one will lock you up for that.

Get your head out of the sand. Sure they haven't locked anyone up but they are pursuing and applying legal means to force Catholics and other Christians to support it.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/fortnight-for-freedom/upload/Catholic-Adoption-Services.pdf


http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Colson/Art_Sep08_Colson.html

Companies are also firing employees who support traditional marriage.

But if gay marriage is impossible like making 2+2=5 then it is impossible for someone to sin by having a gay marriage. It is even impossible to support gay marriage such as it is impossible to support someone in travelling faster than light.
You are merely providing a cake and being paid for goods and services. You are not supporting a gay marriage because gay marriage is impossible. It seems you have nothing to worry about.

So, your logic is; "Living a lie is not morally wrong. Living a lie does not damage anything. Supporting a lie does not damage anything."

Let's say a group of mathematicians came to your bakery and asked for a cake with 2+2=5 on top.
You in a shocked and prudent voice "But that's just wrong, I'm not going to put that on a cake! Hmmph!"
Them whispering to you "Don't worry, we know that 2+2 doesn't equal 5. It's a bit of an inside joke because it is for a leaving party where one of our collegues made an amaziing mathematical formula, thought he was going to be world famous but then under scrutiny we found he made this basic mistake. No numbers will be harmed in the making of this cake, mathematics will not collapse and the world as we know it will continue."


Would you still insist on not making the cake?

Have you even been paying attention? The government is not "joking" or "pretending" to believe that gay marriages is a legitimate thing. They actually believe it is and they are expecting us to follow along and to cater to those who support this lie. They present the choice that we either get with the program or get out.

Also let's use an analogy that actually works with the 2+2=5 example, shall we?

Let's say a board of mathematicians want to create a textbook that will be used in schools that will say 2+2=5. They commission a company to create this textbook. The company refuses to create the textbook. They refuse to do so on the grounds that 2+2=5 is a false equation. They say to create the textbook would be to support a false equation. The mathematicians claim the textbook company is discriminating against them and all mathematicians. They claim the textbook company should just do it since they -the mathematicians- have the money to pay for it.

You, Stevil say the textbook company should be forced to creat the textbook, since 2+2=5 is an impossible equation and impossible things are not dangerous and that supporting them is harmless.

Catholics who have their head out of their A, say the textbook company shouldn't be forced to provide their goods and services in the promulgation of a false equation. They believe the truth is important and that the science of mathematics must be defended.